Lying - an intrinsic evil with no exceptions?

[FNDRB58]

I’ll try to answer this one…

We ought to serve a Lord who calls Himself the Truth and we are to become like Him and imitate Him in all things.
Would Jesus ever lie? You know He wouldn’t. When people asked Him things He wouldn’t answer He either didn’t answer or He counter-asked them something.

I understand your point, however…

You are presuming that Jesus would not sin by telling not tell a truth that should be told to which I agree. But I assert that there are times when lying is not a sin due to circumstances where the person does not have the right to know.

You say that Jesus would never lie (tell an untruth) yet, one could also say with similar certainty that Jesus would never murder (kill another human being), yet there are circumstances when we are justified in the killing of a human being which is called self defense instead of murder. The Lord is also love yet we can justifiably kill another human being (not a loving act) under certain circumstances.

As a person who lives in a free democracy I can honestly say I have never been forced to lie in any sense of the word. I might have avoided answering questions if I had some shameful secret, but I actually believe God never put us in a situation where we have to lie. Lying is in no way part of my daily life.

What would you say to the Nazi at your door?

I must always think of the heroic and saintly family ten Boom, a strong Calvinist family who precisely hid Jews in Holland during the war. In the testimony about this work - which eventually cost 2 of these family members their lives - there are two accounts of Nazis storming into a house and asking if there are Jews in the house.

One time the niece of the author actually points to where they are hidden, and the Nazis don’t believe it and leave the place without checking. The familiy itself is in conflict about the honesty of the young girl, but the answer is given: “God honours truth-telling with perfect protection”.
In the second instance a Jew is actually taken away by the Nazis. The main character Cornelia comes to the place while a young Jewish woman, Anneliese, completely pale and terrified, is being led away by Nazis. But her sister, who has “betrayed” the woman, is calm. Cornelia is shocked and horrified. But her sister Nollie trusts that God still will honour the honesty which He Himself commands. She says:" No ill will happen to Annaliese. God will not let them take her to Germany. He will not let her suffer because I obeyed Him". Total trust. A few days later the Jewish woman is liberated by freedom fighters along with many others from the building where they were imprisoned.
These are true accounts from “The Hiding Place”

What to think of such conduct? I am not sure I would have the FAITH in God myself to not take matters into my own hands … but I think that true saints dont compromise, and God is really with them.
Christianity is radical, but God has patience with us when we are afraid and can’t trust Him to such great an extent… yet we mustn’t somehow excuse our lack of trust.

Interesting story which I will have to read…

Is it possible that God intervened because He saw that her heart was in the right place though He also would have accepted her lying to save her friends from being murdered?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Regarding telling the truth at all times, I was actually in a life or death situation.

My mother was a Type I diabetic. She was staying at my home because my Dad was in the hospital. At about midnight, I checked on her and her skin was cold and clammy. I knew this meant her blood sugar level was dangerously low and that I needed to get some sugar into her ASAP or she could go into a coma and die.

I got some ice cream and woke her up. But she wouldn’t take the ice cream. She tightened her lips, shook her head no. You see, she knew that under normal circumstances, she’s not supposed to eat anything with sugar in it. I tried to reason with her, but because her blood sugar was so low, she was not thinking clearly. She was acting (even talking) like a two-year-old.

So what would you do? Would you tell your mother the ice cream was sugar free or would you let her die?

 

[FNDRB58]

KayCee -

Excellent example! I would be surprised if any of the absolutists would still say one shouldn’t have duped her into taking the sugary substance to save her life.

Sum Fidelis -

I agree that there are circumstances where lying can be acceptable (not a sin). I don’t think the example you gave is one of those circumstances however. If I were a lawyer, I would serve society in truth, which you are sworn to do so I believe, even if your clients don’t like what they hear. Flat out lying to save one’s butt is not the choice God wants us to make. Respectfully, lawyers do not have the greatest reputation precisely because of lying.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…In your Nazi case a lie is not required. If the Nazis ask if there are Jews in the house either silence or a mental reservation technique can be used when the person asking has no right to know the truth.
The answer could be “There are no Jews in this house” (silently continuing “that I will hand over to you”). The part in brackets is the mental reservation. Father Lukfahr, a well known Catholic Educator, respected by many in these forums, informed me of this. Using mental reservation is not lying…

But “mental reservation” is not always sufficient. Suppose you know that some Jews are just about to escape the Nazis. But before they can escape, the Nazis show up. They do not ask you anything. They are going straight toward the house where the Jews are. You are just watching this from across the street. You have one chance to save them. You jump up and tell a complete lie and say to the Nazis “I saw the people from that house running down that path just two minutes ago. If you hurry you might catch them.”. This gives the Jews just enough time to escape out the back door. Now if you can come up with a mental reservation way of saying this without technically lying, then you could do the same to any lie, and whole concept of telling a lie would have no meaning. Somehow I just don’t believe God is impressed by such a technicality, so that saying what I said without thinking of a mental reservation is a sin while adding some extra words silently suddenly turns the sin into not-a-sin. For the record I don’t believe either one is a sin in this case.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

KayCee -

Excellent example! I would be surprised if any of the absolutists would still say one shouldn’t have duped her into taking the sugary substance to save her life.

Sum Fidelis -

I agree that there are circumstances where lying can be acceptable (not a sin). I don’t think the example you gave is one of those circumstances however. If I were a lawyer, I would serve society in truth, which you are sworn to do so I believe, even if your clients don’t like what they hear. Flat out lying to save one’s butt is not the choice God wants us to make. Respectfully, lawyers do not have the greatest reputation precisely
because of lying.

I do agree that my example was a bad one,but I had my thoughts on an other thing and that was the first example I did think about,so sorry for a bad example,I did not thinking. What I however did try to explain that a lie sometimes is right,still being a sin. I personally see every lie as a sin,and can’t really accept lies,but I also know that there are situations when a lie,a sin,serves a purpose that,being a sin,still is the best way to help someone. But right or wrong,even a lie told in a situation where it do more good then bad,is always a sin.
And then my friend,,you have a somehow strange thought that lawyers are not always honest. We do swear to serve the justice,and I know that there are some of us who,lets say,are not exactly using the truth in all cases,but they do not stay as lawyers to long. Our work is not what people think,I guess they think it is like the TV shows our job. It is far from that. (At least in Finland,I am born in Ireland but we moved to Finland when I was very young.) It is not possible to lie in court,or yes it is,but any lawyer * will not do so,and also prevent the client to tell something that is not true. But I do have a story to tell,I don’t know if this is true or not but I think it is a good one. During the civil-war in USA gen. Grant came one cold evening to s small inn and asked for a room for him and his staff. The owner told that they had no rooms,there was a lawyers meeting in town,gen. Grant did look at the bar,and there was a fire place and a lot of people as close as they could,was sitting around it. Gen. Grant said: “I guess hell is like this,a lot of lawyers closest to the fire”. All I did want to say about lies and sins are that there are situations when a lie,still being a sin,can turn in to a blessing. Sometimes we must accept that a sin may be the best thing we can do. I pray it would not be like that,but this world God gave us,was perfect before we came along,so we must play with the cards we got. God bless.*

 

[FNDRB58]

I don’t want our opinions of lawyers ethics to derail this thread so I won’t comment on that issue. Perhaps your post was just poorly written which spurred my retort.

I believe that a lie, by its definition is a sin, just as murder by definition is a sin…that is, all the elements required to be a sin are present. However, I do believe that there are situations where telling an untruth is warranted and justified. It is in those situations where it is not a lie but a justifiable telling of an untruth. Just as murder is not so in a justifiable killing (self-defense, war), so can a lie not be so if the telling of the untruth is justified (Nazi asking where the Jews are hid).

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

A lie is a sin,no matter how we look at it,but a sin can be justified when certain circumstances is there. And I am ever so sorry that I spoiled your thread,wont happen again,never. :crying: I do hope you never need a lawyer though. God bless.

 

[FNDRB58]

I would clarify…a sin is never justified because a sin is an action taken against God. What is true is that telling an untruth, though a sin in certain circumstances, is not a sin in other circumstances. We have to be able to discern which is which.

 

[LilyM]

I would clarify…a sin is never justified because a sin is an action taken against God. What is true is that telling an untruth, though a sin in certain circumstances, is not a sin in other circumstances. We have to be able to discern which is which.

The difference between things like killing (which is sometimes justified) and lying is that the Church offers very clear and detailed guidance in relation to the circumstances in which killing and the other things are justified. The current Catechism and previous Church documents, including catechisms, have been very explicit about these justifications - in the example of killing, about just war, self-defence etc etc.

Name me one, just one, Church document which EVER says it is OK to tell an outright untruth in particular circumstances, and then tell me exactly what those circumstances are where the Church permits outright untruths.

Sure, there are references to the very different situation of keeping silent, or of using ‘discreet’ (which is very different from untruthful) language. But I’ve never come across one which so much as hints that outright untruth can ever be justified under any manner of circumstances. Please, prove me wrong if you can and give me just one church document that says ‘you can tell untruths in xyz situation’.

 

[FNDRB58]

If you want documents that defend my position you have to defend your own first. Please give some documents that say there is no circumstance that could warrant the telling of an untruth. There may be and that I would like to dissect. So I will let you do some of the leg work to get your ball rolling.

A lie is indeed sinful by its definition (presupposes that all requirements are present) so don’t give me documents that already presupposes.

To my knowledge there are no Church documents that address specific situations one way or the other. But the Catechism does give general requirements of what consitutes a lie (sinful), and that is that one must have the right to know the truth. If the person does not have this right then there is no lie, but the justified telling of an untruth.

Are there documents that say that it is a lie (sin) to tell Nazis that the Jews are not inside? . Didn’t Pope Pius hide Jews? Did he put himself in the occasion of sin or was he resolved to give them up if asked by the Gestapo to avoid sin?

There seems to be requirements for many things.
For example:
There are requirements that make an action a mortal sin.
There are requirements that make the killing of a human being murder.
If any requirement is absent then there is no mortal sin nor is their murder.

Why would lying be any different?

 

[LilyM]

The Catechism does give general requirements of what consitutes a lie (sinful), and that is that one must have the right to know the truth.

Wrong, as I will show below.

Are there documents that say that it is a lie (sin) to tell Nazis that the Jews are not inside? Because there may be an absence of documents about the issue does not mean it could not be or isn’t true. Didn’t Pope Pius hide Jews? Did he put himself in the occasion of sin or was he resolved it giving them up if asked by the Gestapo?

Pope Pius was a human and fallible being in an incredibly difficult situation, one which doubtless made his sin venial. Doesn’t make it UNsinful to do as he did.

There seems to be requirements for many things.
For example:
There are requirements that make an action a mortal sin.
There are requirements that make the killing of a human being murder.
If any requirement is absent then there is no mortal sin nor is their murder.

Why would lying be any different?

Lying IS different - so are numerous other sins. There are no circumstances that make the having of sex with someone to whom one is not married less than a sin, for example, or less than intrinsically evil. Adultery can’t be justified by the fact that lives may be saved by it, for the commandment against it is every bit as clear as that against murder, and there’s no indication that the one takes precedence over the other. The most that can happen is that one’s consent isn’t complete, and so one is less subjectively culpable. Doesn’t change the objective or inherent gravity of the act.

In terms of documentation about lying, here’s documentation from the CCC with my own commentary interspersed:

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [deceiving anyone, for any reason, whether it be Nazis in order to save lives or anybody else at any other time for any other reason] 281 The Lord denounces lying [all lying, not just some, not just lies told to some people or for some motives] as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth [ie his relationship to God who is truth, and all untruths do this injury, even those told to murderous Nazis] and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. [No suggestion that these factors ever completely eliminate the gravity of a lie]. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. [No suggestion that any lie is less than a venial sin under any circumstances].

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. [Full stop, no ifs, ands, buts or exceptions, but by its very nature]. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor [even a neighbouring Nazi] into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. [Again, no ifs ands or buts, no special cases where the wrong of the violence is outweighed by other considerations]. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. [But not to tell an untruth to someone who asks for the truth, presumably because such is never appropriate].

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known [but not for lying] or for making use of a discreet language* [but not telling an untruth]*. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. [None of which can be taken to mean that one is entitled to tell untruths to people who don’t have a right to the truth, or indeed to anyone at all]

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, LilyM, I respectfully believe you are wrong about a great deal of what you write, for many reasons:

1. You ask for “one, just one, Church document which EVER says it is OK to tell an outright untruth in particular circumstances…”

In my opinion this bespeaks a fundamental – and complete – misunderstanding as to how the Church is to guide us. It is, IMHO, all too common on this board.

Why? Because at its heart is the belief that “Church documents” are supposed to be complete guides for moral issues, no matter how complex. They are not.
Your position seems to be that, “if a Church document says we can do something, we can, and if a Church document says we can’t, we can’t.” However, as I posit often, morality is often very complex. The Cathechism is not a compendium of what is permissible or impermissible, across the board, and it never purports to be. We are generally left to our own consciences in most instances, except in those instances where acts are so serious (i.e. killing others) that some hard fast rules are necessary. Many people may look to “Church documents” to guide us, but they are just that – guides, not absolutes covering all instances/circumstances we may encounter in life.

Moreover, in the same vein, the Church generally NEVER tells us what IS permissible. It does occasionally tell us what is NOT permissible, and even then there are generally exceptions. We don’t need a “Church document” to say what’s OK, because many acts are morally neutral…or are simply left to our consciences, and circumstances.

1. Now, as to my proof for the foregoing, I reason thus: The Church guides us to, for example, obey and respect civil law & authority. Police are allowed under civil law to lie to suspects as a means of investigating crimes. The state allows the dissemination of false information to national enemies who would do us harm. So there are plenty of instances where the Church “hints that outright untruth can ever be justified under any manner of circumstances.”

[More coming in a bit]

 

[LilyM]

I’m sorry, LilyM, I respectfully believe you are wrong about a great deal of what you write, for many reasons:

1. You ask for “one, just one, Church document which EVER says it is OK to tell an outright untruth in particular circumstances…”

Yes I do, as a counterbalance to the numerous occasions where the opposite is taught. Not because I have an unhealthy reliance on documents, but simply because there is SUCH a preponderance, of church law and theological guidance, going in the one direction, that all lying is at least to some degree sinful, that I’m wondering where people get other ideas from.

1. Now, as to my proof for the foregoing, I reason thus: The Church guides us to, for example, obey and respect civil law & authority. Police are allowed under civil law to lie to suspects as a means of investigating crimes. The state allows the dissemination of false information to national enemies who would do us harm. So there are plenty of instances where the Church “hints that outright untruth can ever be justified under any manner of circumstances.”

[More coming in a bit]

You reason wrongly. The Church guides and always has guided us to obey LEGITIMATE civil law and authority, not ALL civil law and authority.

There are many unjust and morally repugnant laws, which are illegitimate and which Catholics may have a duty, and certainly do have a right, to oppose or ignore. Laws punishing people who hid Jews in Nazi Germany, for example. Laws requiring health care professionals to agree to assist in abortions if required, or chemists to agree to sell contraceptives, for other examples.

As for a police person who is permitted by civil law to lie in the course of their work - as I’ve just demonstrated, the Church’s guidance by no means indicates that each and every law is OK in moral terms. Each law needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and its validity discerned.

The laws about policepersons lying may well be one illegitimate law among the others I’ve mentioned, depending on the actual provisions of it.

Now I’ve never suggested that lying is always a mortal sin, but the fact that a law permits even venial sin doesn’t mean one can justify even venial sin by reference to civil law which permits that venial sin.

 

[VonDerTann]

Now, as to the position that the Catechism prohibits all untruths, I’m sorry, but such a position is theologically unsound:

“2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [deceiving anyone, for any reason, whether it be Nazis in order to save lives or anybody else at any other time for any other reason]”
–The important consideration is that the 2482 does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” 2482 adds the subjective element of “intent to deceive.” If my intent is to save a life of a Jew, or investigate a crime, I have not lied. 2482 could have said, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” It did not.
–The fact that we can IMPLY meaning is obvious. 2482 says a lie is SPEAKING falsehood, and 2485 says it is a profanation of SPEECH. We know that covers printed words, as well, but the Catechism says “speech.” If you can imply that a lie includes WRITTEN falsehoods, I can imply that it also only means when the deceived has a right to the truth.

“2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth [ie his relationship to God who is truth, and all untruths do this injury, even those told to murderous Nazis]…”
–If my intent is not to lead another to error, I have not committed an offense.

“2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. [No suggestion that these factors ever completely eliminate the gravity of a lie].”
–False. 2484 admits that the gravity can be lessened on circumstances. It can be lessened to zero. There is no proof otherwise.

“If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. [No suggestion that any lie is less than a venial sin under any circumstances].”
–It says “IF” a lie is a venial sin. It could have said “all lies are at least venial.” It did not. By negative implication some lies are not even venial.

As to the remainder you qoute…I can only respond that 2488 admits that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional…”
–Period. I take this to mean some lies are accceptable. 2488 says that “everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love.” Right to communicate the truth is not unconditional, but EVERYONE MUST conform to the Gospel of LOVE. This seems clear that telling the truth is conditional, but LOVE overrides that. If in my love of neighbor I lie to save him from the Nazis…I have not sinned.

My final proof is simply common sense: Anyone who really thinks I sin by lying to save the Jew when the Nazis come, is witness to an overly legalistic/autocratic view of morality, and Christianity. As Benedict XVI observed, Catholicism is not a set of rules, its a relationship with God, and humanity…and I am confident that love of neighbor ALWAYS overrides simplistic notions of “never, ever lie.”

 

[FNDRB58]

Lying IS different - so are numerous other sins. There are no circumstances that make the having of sex with someone to whom one is not married less than a sin, for example, or less than intrinsically evil. Adultery can’t be justified by the fact that lives may be saved by it, for the commandment against it is every bit as clear as that against murder, and there’s no indication that the one takes precedence over the other.

Problem here…The genus of the act is not “having sex out of marriage” - that is the specific. It is “having sex” that is the genus. We then say there is justified sex (marriage) and unjustified sex (out of marriage). So there are indeed requirements in this example of yours. If the requirements are missing from one then there is sin, If the requirements of the other are missing then there is no sin.

In terms of documentation about lying, here’s documentation from the CCC with my own commentary interspersed:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying [all lying, not just some, not just lies told to some people or for some motives] as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

This quote is a very general statement which needs to be taken into context and is why the Catechism speaks in more detail later in the section.

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth [ie his relationship to God who is truth, and all untruths do this injury, even those told to murderous Nazis] and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Not sure your opinion regarding the Nazis applies here.

2484 does not speak to what makes the telling of an untruth possibly a lie or a justifiable telling of an untruth. “The gravity of the lie” presupposes that the lie is already sinful - all requirements having already been met. I agree that a lie is a lie because a sin is a sin. Let us from here on speak of the “telling of an untruth” of which a lie is only if it meets certain requirements and of which a lie is not if the requirments to be a lie are not met.

I would say that lying to Nazis to save innocent lives is not at all a “deformity of truth,” nor does it “harm anybody”. Wouldn’t justice (telling them an untruth to save children of God) outweigh any “deformity of truth” told to murderers?

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. [Full stop, no ifs, ands, buts or exceptions, but by its very nature]. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor [even a neighbouring Nazi] into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. [Again, no ifs ands or buts, no special cases where the wrong of the violence is outweighed by other considerations]. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

What “real violence” would lying to the Nazis cause?
How does the telling of an untruth to murders “hurt” the murderers?

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

Who would I make reparations to for the lie I perpetrated on the Jew seeking Nazi? Are you interpreting 2487 to mean that I have to apologize to the Nazis if my plan were successful? And who suffered harm, the Nazi because I thwarted his opportunity to blow a child of God’s brains out?

2489 ** Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others**, respect for privacy, and the **common good **are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known [but not for lying] or for making use of a discreet language [but not telling an untruth]. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. [None of which can be taken to mean that one is entitled to tell untruths to people who don’t have a right to the truth, or indeed to anyone at all]

Do you believe that the context of the above statement, especially the phrases in bold applies to murderers and who are requesting information? Does it serve the common good to give up the Jews in hiding? Why would we be obligated to treat murderers in the loving way of truthfully responding to their requests to murder? Do they deserve this loving act from us at this horrendous moment?

I don’t believe you have shown anything other than a lie is a lie. Nothing here speaks to a circumstance that might make the telling of an untruth NOT a lie.

Context.

 

[VonDerTann]

LilyM:

Let’s look at your statement:

“As for a police person who is permitted by civil law to lie in the course of their work - as I’ve just demonstrated, the Church’s guidance by no means indicates that each and every law is OK in moral terms. Each law needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and its validity discerned…The laws about policepersons lying may well be one illegitimate law among the others I’ve mentioned, depending on the actual provisions of it.”

–Let’s not talk about what the law’s actual provisions are, since I’ll let you draft it any way you want. But should the police be able to lie to a suspect under these circumstances? Yes? No? in real life, the answer to each is “yes,” in the US, anyway:

1. Suspect is being questioned for murder. Police say, “we have the knife and there are fingerprints on it…if they are yours, you’ll get 30 years…but if you confess, we’ll go easy on you.” Reality: The knife has been wiped clean.
2. Suspect A and B are wanted for killing person X. Suspect A is in room A with cop A. Suspect B is in room B with cop B. Cop B says to suspect B, “suspect A just said you & he killed X but it was your plan and your idea…care to tell us what happened?” Reality: Suspect A has said he wants a lawyer.

Lawful? IMHO, yes…and thank God it is, here in the US. A good pair of NY or Chicago detectives can solve ANYTHING.

 

[LilyM]

Now, as to the position that the Catechism prohibits all untruths, I’m sorry, but such a position is theologically unsound:

“2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [deceiving anyone, for any reason, whether it be Nazis in order to save lives or anybody else at any other time for any other reason]”
–The important consideration is that the 2482 does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” 2482 adds the subjective element of “intent to deceive.” If my intent is to save a life of a Jew, or investigate a crime, I have not lied. 2482 could have said, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” It did not.

But you HAVE lied. You have spoken a falsehood to the Nazis with the intention of deceiving them - of misleading them into mistaking untruth for truth. The fact that you had additional intents and motivations on top of the intent of deceiving them doesn’t mean you lacked the necessary intent for it to be a lie.

If you spoke an untruth believing it to be truth, for example, THEN you would lack the intention to decieve, and so your untruth would not be a lie. Not in your situation.

–The fact that we can IMPLY meaning is obvious. 2482 says a lie is SPEAKING falsehood, and 2485 says it is a profanation of SPEECH. We know that covers printed words, as well, but the Catechism says “speech.” If you can imply that a lie includes WRITTEN falsehoods, I can imply that it also only means when the deceived has a right to the truth.

No - if lying is to be condemned by its very nature then it is intrinsically evil, and, as with all intrinsic evils, absent lack of knowledge, lack of free will or lack of consent it can never be anything other than a venial sin at least.

“If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. [No suggestion that any lie is less than a venial sin under any circumstances].”

–It says “IF” a lie is a venial sin. It could have said “all lies are at least venial.” It did not. By negative implication some lies are not even venial.

False. Some lies, of course, are mortal sins and therefore not venial. No justification that I can see for your ‘negative implication’.

As to the remainder you qoute…I can only respond that 2488 admits that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional…”
–Period. I take this to mean some lies are accceptable. 2488

Not ‘period’. It’s not the end of the story. The CCC goes on to states what one can do on occasions where someone has no right to the truth - be silent or use discreet language, which does not mean falsehoods.

“everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love.” Right to communicate the truth is not unconditional, but EVERYONE MUST conform to the Gospel of LOVE. This seems clear that telling the truth is conditional, but LOVE overrides that. If in my love of neighbor I lie to save him from the Nazis…I have not sinned.

And if in my love of neighbour I sleep with a different man every night and lie to 'em all without compunction in order to keep on doing so with no consequences, then I guess I haven’t sinned either, since love overrides all else.

Love is the fulfilling of the law, as scripture says, and someone who loves Christ will keep His commands, as He said. And more importantly one who loves Christ will strive to be like Him in His unwavering commitment to truth (which was and is entirely consistent with love of neighbour and with doing good for neighbour) as well as all His other admirable qualities.

My final proof is simply common sense: Anyone who really thinks I sin by lying to save the Jew when the Nazis come, is witness to an overly legalistic/autocratic view of morality, and Christianity. As Benedict XVI observed, Catholicism is not a set of rules, its a relationship with God, and humanity…and I am confident that love of neighbor ALWAYS overrides simplistic notions of “never, ever lie.”

:yawn: Every sinner justifies their sin by painting their opponents as being overly legalistic and unloving. Adulterers, thieves, those who disobey the commandment to honour the sabbath, and all the rest. I would’ve expected something a bit more original from you.

Ignoring Christ’s commandments and the law is not being truly loving, not towards Him nor our neighbour.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Let’s look at your statement:

“As for a police person who is permitted by civil law to lie in the course of their work - as I’ve just demonstrated, the Church’s guidance by no means indicates that each and every law is OK in moral terms. Each law needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and its validity discerned…The laws about policepersons lying may well be one illegitimate law among the others I’ve mentioned, depending on the actual provisions of it.”

–Let’s not talk about what the law’s actual provisions are, since I’ll let you draft it any way you want. But should the police be able to lie to a suspect under these circumstances? Yes? No? [in real life, the answer to each is “yes,” in the US, anyway:

1. Suspect is being questioned for murder. Police say, “we have the knife and there are fingerprints on it…if they are yours, you’ll get 30 years…but if you confess, we’ll go easy on you.” Reality: The knife has been wiped clean.
2. Suspect A and B are wanted for killing person X. Suspect A is in room A with cop A. Suspect B is in room B with cop B. Cop B says to suspect B, “suspect A just said you & he killed X but it was your plan and your idea…care to tell us what happened?” Reality: Suspect A has said he wants a lawyer.

Lawful? IMHO, yes…and thank God it is, here in the US. A good pair of NY or Chicago detectives can solve ANYTHING.

You mean they can put a person behind bars for anything. Whoopty-do.

Why not pick a random person off the street for each crime, lock that random person up and be done with even the pretence of a proper investigation or properly-based conviction. It would be as much use to society to do that as to stoop to the behaviour you’ve described.

Never mind that people confess because they are scared out of their right senses and into unreason, or because they imagine that evidence has been manufactured or planted in order to frame them, as it often IS, or for a million reasons apart from actually being guilty and properly punished.
[/quote]

 

[FNDRB58]

CORRECTION on last comment on previous post. What I meant to say was…

I don’t believe you [Lily], have shown anything other than a lie is a lie. Nothing here speaks to a circumstance that might make the telling of every telling of a truth IS a lie.

 

[VonDerTann]

IMHO there is a huge difference between adulterers and someone who tells the Nazis “no jews here!” Some won’t see any difference at all.

So I’m sorry, LilyM, we will have to disagree. You are simply not going to convince me (or a LOT of others) that saying “no jews here!” to the Nazis is even 1% sinful.